Nolan should have looked at Melissa George or Amanda Peet for the part of Catwoman. Also, do they have to retire the Joker? Why couldn’t someone like Joseph Gordon-Levitt take it on? Better yet, give it to Gary Oldman. Ol’ rubber face can do the lot. There’s a part in Interstate 60 where he does the face, it’s effortless. I’d have given him the role of The Joker from the start and allowed him to do whatever the hell he wanted with it.

Hells yes. Highly under-the-radar hottie. One million times sexier than Manface Hathanerd.

Nolan should have looked at Melissa George or Amanda Peet for the part of Catwoman. Also, do they have to retire the Joker? Why couldn't someone like Joseph Gordon-Levitt take it on? Better yet, give it to Gary Oldman. Ol' rubber face can do the lot. There's a part in Interstate 60 where he does the face, it's effortless. I'd have given him the role of The Joker from the start and allowed him to do whatever the hell he wanted with it.

Give it to the same Gary Oldman that already has a central role in the films as Gordon? What?

You guys need to realize it's not the characters that matter, but the writing. Good writing can make any character interesting. The perfect example of this is James Robinson's STARMAN series which took an extremely obscure hero with uninteresting "powers" and made one of the single best comic series from start to finish you will ever read. Having said that, Bane has been written well many times over the years (check out the ongoing Secret Six for example). I don't think there is any reason to be concerned here. A friend and I actually predicted this months ago and we are both convinced that his character, onscreen, will be portrayed as a mix of Bane and Black Mask. Also, don't be surprised if they tie his story with having a history with Ra's al Ghul. It's been done in the comics before...

^See, I disagree with that. No amount of writing can cover up shitty acting. Take Spider-Man for instance. The comics always portray him as sarcastic, humorous, and witty. Plug Tobey McGwire into the role and you end up with mopey, broody, and depressing.

^See, I disagree with that. No amount of writing can cover up shitty acting. Take Spider-Man for instance. The comics always portray him as sarcastic, humorous, and witty. Plug Tobey McGwire into the role and you end up with mopey, broody, and depressing.

You missed my point. People in this thread were calling Bane a one dimensional comic book character. I was pointing out that good writing can take any character and make them interesting. My comments had something to do with acting.

I wouldn't be worried about the acting anyways. Tom Hardy is a fantastic actor and a great pic. As for Anne Hathaway, she wouldn't have been my first choice, but I am more then willing to give the casting a benefit of a doubt. A lot of people thought Heath Ledger was a crazy pick to play the Joker and look how that turned out? His performance was amazing. Christopher Nolan knows what he is doing.

What? With it publicly known that Nolan will be directing and co-writing again, they could name this "Batmans Shit his Pants" and people will still see it and probably break records. You're just looking for a reason to hate the damn movie.

I've been looking forward to this movie since the credits rolled on TDK. I'm pointing out the fact it's a poor title is all. Why would I want to hate a movie before I saw it. That doesn't make any sense.

I've been looking forward to this movie since the credits rolled on TDK. I'm pointing out the fact it's a poor title is all. Why would I want to hate a movie before I saw it. That doesn't make any sense.

Well, read the thread and read Rambos response and ask him.

If the title works with what the movie is about, then it isn't really just there for advertising that is why it makes no sense. If they want it to sell, make the title Nolan's Batman then maybe it will get a few more bucks from people.

^See, I disagree with that. No amount of writing can cover up shitty acting. Take Spider-Man for instance. The comics always portray him as sarcastic, humorous, and witty. Plug Tobey McGwire into the role and you end up with mopey, broody, and depressing.

For all we know that is also writing. If they don't write Peter Parker as sarcastic or humorous, then why would Tobey play him that way? They have to give him the lines, what to say and how to say it. If it says for him to be a dork then why would he play anything other than that?

No matter what you say, SM1 & SM2 worked, even with the character and power changes. Those two movies were great and Tobey played Peter Parker well, maybe not great after seeing Heaths performance as the Joker but he really did seem like Peter Parker right out of the comic books.